Steering Committee Meeting

February 7-9, 2000
Stavanger

Attendees:

Monday February 7, 2000

After John Shaw's welcome and introduction, several business issues were brought up.

1. Chevron’s participation was brought up. Paul Jones has indicated that he is having difficulties soliciting support from the business units. Ahmed Abou-Sayed indicated he had a contact at Chevron, who he could approach.
2. Kerr McGee contractual issues had been resolved. The membership welcomed Mark Wallace and his colleagues.
3. John McLennan summarized the financial and membership status (posted on the web site).

The proceedings deviated somewhat from the agenda at this point. Task summaries and technical presentations were essentially given together. The proceedings are summarized below, on a Task by Task basis.

Task 1:  Monitoring

John McLennan summarized the current status and the Sponsors indicated dates for receipt of reports and tools. A common theme associated with this and other presentations was strongly indicated by the Sponsors - some deliverables are available and they should be immediately provided to Sponsors for evaluation, even if they are only partially completed. There will be more discussion of this later in these minutes.

Paul van den Hoek brought up the issue of comprehending fracture initiation. There was no resolution as to how much initiation should be considered in the Task. The fracture models that had been inventoried and summarized were presented, as were models that would be still summarized. It was agreed that Cornell's model and FracPro would be added to the list and that field cases would be considered for the different models, where possible.

On a more generic level, Laurence Murray indicated that there should be a workshop on each Task.

It was indicated that the public domain model review would be sent out to everyone for review (this has been done) and that the Hall Plot summary would be provided soon (this has been done). Other review documents to be provided included a HIT summary (this has been done), a summary of friction calculation methods (this has been done) and a revised version of the "Best Practices" for SRT.

Task 2:  Matrix Injection

The questions that were raised during David Davies presentation included specific issues about Injectivity Models?

1. What needs to be done? From summaries of available models, what are the conclusions? Implement and finalize the review of the models that was shown in one of the slides.
2. Define the commonality among the models? Circulate the model summaries.
3. What about PEA-23? This issue was resolved with Laurence Murray's presentation of PEA-23 highlights on Tuesday, February 8.
4. What is the PWRI strategy for models?
5. What are the results of consequence?
6. How long will plugging take?
7. Post/circulate the literature review, even if it is only partially done.
8. In a situation where matrix injection is required, are there steps that can be taken to help increase and/or maintain the level of injectivity?
9. Paul van den Hoek agreed to provide some additional models used by Shell (this has been done).

Task 3:  Soft Formations

The presentation was by Tony Settari. It was indicated that the completions spreadsheet would be discussed on Tuesday. Discussion of this was deferred, as was discussion of Llyod Barfoot's Problem Solving Spreadsheet. Tony Settari also suggested the following timelines. (Note that these deliverables and times have been superseded by those established in the breakout sessions on Wednesday, February 9.)

1. Models - signatures (April 30)
2. Models - dos and don'ts (June 30)
3. Models - permeability reduction (???)
4. Forecasting - Program for Testing Tools (post to the web site immediately)
5. Turbulence Report (March 30)

Task 4:  Stimulation/Mitigation

David Davies presented the status of the stimulation/mitigation task. Discussion focused on molding the Task to determine:

1. What stimulation techniques work and where?
2. What are the basic techniques used?
3. Provide Sponsors with the literature survey, even if it is not complete.
4. Road Map/Decision Tree. David presented a set of questions in a decision tree format that need to be addressed in deciding on a stimulation or mitigation program or during planning stages.
5. For this and other Tasks, Jean-Louis Detienne emphasized that key wells should be identified.

Task 5: Layered Formations

This was presented by John McLennan. Several issues were presented and resolved.

1. Spreadsheet solutions are been developed for use in analyzing the data that are available. It was agreed that these did not constitute model development and that they should be distributed as soon as possible.
2. Before proceeding with the large-scale block testing that was in the original proposal, the value of these tests needs to be definitively defined and/or focused. A proposal is required - to come out after the layered formations workshop.

Task 6: Horizontal Injectors

Tony Settari indicated status and the following commitments were made. (Note that these deliverables and times have been superseded by those established in the breakout sessions on Wednesday, February 9.)

1. Survey of horizontals - send out for review next week and finalize by the end of March.
2. Revised V.I.P.S. report - one month.
3. Injection Profile Conformance
4. Company Tools for Horizontal wells (send out survey).
5. A revised schedule was requested by the Sponsors.

Task 7: Database

Brian Odette demonstrated the database as it currently exists and showed his timetable with milestones. There was a request to provide further instructions on using the Newsgroups. This was provided and subsequently, instructions have been e-mailed to everyone.

Newsletter:

Ahmed Abou-Sayed described the three previous Newsletter issues and received commitments for articles, as shown in the Table below.

Tuesday February 8, 2000

Laurence Murray presented some of the highlights of the PEA-23 Project. As this information is central to this entire consortium effort PEA-23 will be summarized in detail, under separate cover.

After lunch, John McLennan presented some of the block testing that had been carried out in PEA-23.

John McLennan presented status and results of the Completions Selection spreadsheet formulated at the Soft Formations Workshop. Recommendations from Statoil and Marathon were presented. Jean-Louis Detienne presented a comprehensive selection of field cases that had been tested in the spreadsheet. Ahmed Abou-Sayed outlined the potential for attaching risk assessment and the statistics of failure. The comments from the Sponsors were that the spreadsheet should be developed in a stepwise fashion and that more details were required behind the spreadsheet. The resolution was that adding risk analysis should not be done without some form of proposal to the Sponsors. Adding certain statistics was favored by Laurence Murray. Christine Valvatne indicated that the spreadsheet formed a good vehicle for defining areas that we don't know enough about. Upcoming activity for finishing the spreadsheet was presented by John McLennan (modifying some fields, adding additional information to the cells, user manual).

Lloyd Barfoot summarized the status of the Problem Solving Spreadsheet and requested Sponsor input.

Wednesday, February 9, 2000

Sponsors met separately at the end of Tuesday's session. Their concerns and requirements were communicated to the Contractors, first thing on Wednesday morning. The Sponsors described the following issues.

1. Progress Management

• Meeting minutes are to be provided.
• Progress reports are to be provided monthly to the mentors who will evaluate and react as appropriate.
• Task mentors (use them, regular communication, interim steering, interim assurance).

2. Contractor Meeting

• Local sponsor follow-up/Task Mentoring

3. Progress Report on Web (February 18, 2000)

• Minimum one to two page summary, on the web, e-mail to mentors, mentor review and feedback

4. Progress

• "Confidentiality is holding us up." It was indicated to the Contractors that this should not be an issue and that relevant data should just be cleaned up!
• "Contractor push back." Deadlines must not be changed without accord of the Mentors.
• Inaction was a concern in some areas.
• Lack of initiative in some areas needs to be resolved.
• Contractors need to be more proactive.
• Lack of communication needs to be resolved by Contractors interacting with the Mentors and posting to web page.
• Tangible deliverables need to be defined (see below - presentations of the individual Tasks after the breakout sessions).
• Clear definition of current and future status is important (current status to be defined on the web site by February 18).
• Access to draft information on the web site is essential. The Contractors should not wait until drafts are final.
• Regular Progress Reports are required (one to two pages indicating progress, problems, spending, planned activities and milestones).

5. Mentors were defined.

• Task 1 - Monitoring:  Laurence Murray
• Task 2 - Matrix Injection:  Paul van den Hoek
• Task 3 - Soft Formations:  Jean-Louis Detienne
• Task 4 - Stimulation and Mitigation:  Kitt Ravnkilde and Paul van den Hoek
• Task 5 - Layered Formations:  John Shaw and Bob Sydansk
• Task 6 - Horizontal Wells:  Laurence Murray and Marco Brignoli

After Laurence Murray expressed the Sponsors' concerns and the required actions by the Contractors, Benedicte Kvalheim and Knut Andersen summarized issues relevant to Brage, with particular emphasis on the layered character and required stimulation protocols.

There were breakout sessions between Contractors and Sponsors to address what needs to be accomplished in the upcoming months and to define the immediate required actions and deliverables for each Task. Afterwards, one representative from each breakout group presented the indicated course of action.

Task 1:  Monitoring

The focus was arranging a workshop in conjunction with the Layered Formations Workshop and to promptly issue various products. Revised status for this and other Tasks was posted to the web site (under Task Status) on February 18.

Task 2:  Matrix Injection

The results of the breakout session were presented. The immediate priorities included submitting the literature review, providing an interim report on the field data analyses and indicating to the Sponsors where there are gaps in information. Provide the model summaries (do not include obsolete or esoteric models). Plan for a Workshop in Edinburgh in May or June.

Task 3:  Soft Formations

The results of the breakout session were presented by Jean-Louis Detienne. It is particularly desirable to process the available field data, in a fashion similar to what was done in PEA-23, to define the more sensitive parameters and the degree of loss of injectivity in soft formations. The basic considerations are "What is the Problem, How are we handling injection into soft formations today (existing tools), and What should be done in the future (technology gaps)?"

Task 4:  Stimulation and Mitigation

The various milestones defined are shown on the PWRI web site (Task Status). These include a first draft of the literature review, establishing a deadline for the first draft of a synthesis of stimulation methodologies, incorporating surface facilities into the efforts and well testing. There was a presentation on economics by David Davies after lunch (see below).

Task 5:  Layered Formations

The focus was arranging a workshop in conjunction with the Monitoring Workshop and to promptly issue various products. Revised status for this and other Tasks was posted to the web site (under Task Status) on February 18. Mark Tuckwood indicated that Bob Sydansk had several decades of specific experience in this speciality and would be willing to coordinate a workshop at Marathon's facility in Littleton, Colorado. Contractors were urged to expedite this and other workshops and to endeavor to hold them ASAP.

Task 6:  Horizontal Wells

The results of the breakout session were presented. They were consolidated into a status page that has been posted to the web site.

Planned Workshops:

Next Steering Committee Meeting

The issue of a date for the next Steering Committee meeting was brought up. It was agreed that the next meeting should be before the end of June 2000. It was suggested that it would be at the end or at some time during the Workshop Meetings at Heriot-Watt University in the week of May 29 through June 2.

Adjourn just before lunch.

Economics

Although some people had to leave, David Davies presented a conceptual plan for evaluating economics, after lunch on Wednesday. Paul van den Hoek agreed to make a Proposal on what might be done. Some of the questions and issues raised (in regard to economics) were:

1. What is the detailed work that needs to be done?
2. The cost data may vary geographically.
3. More basic issues might include reductions in facilities costs.
4. Collect reliable data.
5. Make evaluation generic only?